All posts by Eve Ogden Schaub

Unknown's avatar

About Eve Ogden Schaub

Serial memoirist Eve O. Schaub lives with her family in Vermont and enjoys performing experiments on them so she can write about it. Author of Year of No Sugar (2014) and Year of No Clutter (2017) and most recently Year of No GARBAGE (2023). Find her on Twitter @Eveschaub IG or eveschaub.com.

Demystifying My Magical Washing Machine

Pods. You know them: those little packets that are supposed to save us from the arduous and soul-destroying task of having to actually measure liquid detergent. The horror.

Lately quite a few ads have been trying to persuade me to change laundry detergent and use eco-friendly pods instead. But we are lucky, because in our house we don’t have to worry about laundry detergent containers junking up the landfill, or petro-chemicals in our detergent, or even whether the biodegradable plastic that encases the pods is really okay… because we don’t use laundry detergent at all.

My Laundry Room. Sexy, right?

Instead we have a system called an EcoWasher. Essentially, this is an appliance the size of supermarket sheet cake. It attaches to the wall above your washing machine and magically makes your clothes clean.

At least this is how it was explained to me at the appliance store. What I heard was “You don’t have to buy laundry detergent anymore!” It also didn’t hurt that this supernatural contraption would pay for itself pretty quickly: the average American family spends $180 per year on laundry detergent; an EcoWasher costs $400. On top of that it only washes in cold, so you save the cost of heating the water; and depending who you ask that amounts to another $150-$300 savings per year.

We particularly liked the fact that we could get away from traditional detergents that contain harmful chemicals and fragrances- better for us, better for the environment. After all, if the average American household uses 5,600 gallons of water per year washing clothes, and there are roughly 130 million American households, this means that we have something like 728 billion gallons per year of petro-chemical-filled water flooding back into our waterways. Ick.

We were convinced. We got it home and hooked the panel up to our washing machine, and were amazed to find that it was true: our clothes somehow came out clean, using only cold water. How was this possible? I had no idea.

But inspired by those ads for eco-pods, I began to wonder- what was going on in my washing machine? So I looked into it. On EcoWasher’s website they explain that inside the flat panel our water goes through “ozone infusion” creating something called “Hydroxyl Radicals.” It is the Hydroxyl Radicals that attack the bacteria in clothes.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Up until now, I had just kind of blissfully accepted that my EcoWasher knew what it was doing and we left each other alone, but now that I had this modicum of information, complete with chemically-sounding words? I was made of questions:

Ozone infusion– is that okay?

Where does the ozone come from?

Does it get released? Is that good or bad?

And Hydroxyl Radicals- are those like free radicals?

Aren’t free radicals bad?

All of this brought me to the $64,000 question: does infusing ozone and creating Hydroxyl Radicals in my washing machine do any damage to me, my family or to the environment?

Even as I wonder this a rational angel appears on my shoulder whispering “Oh Eve- don’t you think if this technology was creating a dangerous rip in the time-space continuum we’d have heard about it by now?” Not surprisingly, the conspiracy theorist angel on my other shoulder isn’t convinced. “Hey Eve, exactly how many things has civilization thought was a wonderful new idea, only to find out it was wonderfully harmful instead? Shall we count them?” The list is long.

In an attempt to get to the bottom of such questions I called EcoWasher. While I waited for them to call me back I watched a whole bunch of YouTube videos and read articles explaining ozone laundry technology. I found out that the EcoWasher is based on technology that has been used in hospitals and resorts for decades. I also found out that Hydroxyl Radicals are famous in the world of chemistry for acting like “nature’s detergent,” decomposing pollutants, and neutralizing viruses and bacteria. All this sounded pretty good.

But reputable sources agree: Hydroxyl Radicals are free radicals and are bad- at least when they are in our bodies. In the atmosphere, however, they turn into good guys, scrubbing the stratosphere like your grandmother’s linoleum floor. Chemistry is confusing this way: because it’s almost impossible to keep the good guys and bad guys straight when they keep shape shifting depending upon their context. On top of its Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde personality, I learned that Hydroxyl Radicals have a life span of less than one second. Interestingly, this is why the water in your laundry needs to be cold: because warmer temperatures reduce the lifespan of the Hydroxyl Radicals, and they didn’t have that much to work with to begin with.

I concluded, Hydroxyl Radicals sounded a lot scarier than they really were. I figured as long as little suckers stay out of my body and in my washing machine for their short little one-second lives, I probably didn’t need to freak out about them very much.

But what about the ozone? Where did it come from? Where did it go?

You probably won’t be surprised to learn that once again the answer is “it depends!” Of course, when ozone is in the stratosphere, or upper atmosphere, it protects the earth from damaging UV rays. Most of us came to know this back in the 1980s when it was revealed that chlorofluorocarbons were creating a dangerous hole in this protective layer. So: ozone= good guy!

But put ozone in another context and everything changes. When ozone is present in the troposphere, or lower atmosphere, it becomes a greenhouse gas, trapping heat and warming the planet, not to mention causing problems for people with breathing disorders. Plus- and this blew my mind a little bit- did you know that ozone is just another kind of oxygen? It’s called an allotrope, meaning an element that takes different physical forms.

I’m not sure if my 11th grade chemistry teacher would be proud of me for figuring this much out, or sobbing softly into a hankie. Regardless, I felt pretty good about being able to cobble together a rudimentary understanding of what was otherwise just a bunch of scary-sounding science words.

To recap: ozone laundry systems take oxygen from the air and charge it with electricity, turning it into the form of oxygen known as ozone. Hydroxyl Radicals are then formed as a result of the reaction between the water and the ozone/oxygen. Then they do the good work of killing the bacteria makes our clothes smell, before dying a graceful death at the ripe old age of one second.

It sounds good, and I’m so glad because I really didn’t want to start buying detergent again. There are still a few things I wonder though: Where does the ozone go? Does it, too, degrade and basically disappear once its job is done, like the Hydroxyl Radicals? Also, I wonder how the Hydroxyl Radicals clean my clothes if they have such a short lifespan- is one second even enough time to get to my clothes?

And just for fun, I wonder: would this same technology work on a dishwasher as well? If not, why not? Cause I’d love to stop buying dish detergent too.

I’ve called EcoWasher several times with no response yet, so I’m going to wonder these last few mysteries a while longer. But I feel both empowered and reassured by understanding a bit better the science at work in this fascinating little box.

Post Script: I’m not being paid by EcoWasher to talk about their product- it is just the one we happen to have. I should point out that EcoWasher is just one of a variety of different such “Ozone Laundry Systems” on the market today- here is a link to a YouTube video that describes several of them.

 

 

A Burning Question

Ever wonder where the wax goes when a candle burns? Or what the carbon footprint of a campfire is? How does that compare to the heating of your house? Are candles harmful? What about burning butter wrappers? Come to think of it, is burning anything okay?

These are the rabbit holes I go down. Alice would be jealous.

The Dartmouth Annual Bonfire

I’ve been thinking a lot about fire lately because we have an outdoor fireplace, and on summer evenings my husband Steve may often be found rooting around for a quick fire starter. Whenever I don’t have enough reusable bags at the grocery store, I request a paper bag, knowing that Steve will use it to start our next family campfire. Then, not too long ago, I got an idea: why not put other things in this “burn bag”? Things that are too small or too messy to otherwise recycle? After all, I ‘ve read that cardboard tubes from toilet paper are small enough to fall through the cracks at the recycling plant. Plus we’ve all heard the stories about how dirty recyclables can contaminate an entire load… food paper products are among the hardest recyclables to get clean.

Thus, the paper price tag from a new shirt, or scraps of wool from Greta’s needlepoint, and the messy pizza boxes everyone tells you not to recycle all seemed like good fodder for fire starting, and solved a problem for me in the No Garbage department.

Next, I wondered, could I add wax paper- such as butter wrappers? In the composting community there is much debate about the compostability of wax paper, and till this point I’d been cutting my wax wrappers into strips before adding them to our compost pile to aid in their decomposition- not a task that I enjoy tremendously, mind you. I was reminded that wax paper is usually made with paraffin wax, which is petroleum based. Uh-oh. Plastic is petroleum based. Did that mean burning wax paper would be as bad as… burning a piece of plastic? As I’d already learned when researching garbage incineration, burning plastic releases all kinds of bad stuff: hydrochloric acid, sulfur dioxide, dioxins, furans and heavy metals which can cause cancer, respiratory problems and possibly some forms of reality television.

So I looked up “burning paraffin” and it turns out that not only are butter wrappers made of paraffin wax, but most candles are too. In fact, there is a whole slew of blog posts out there devoted to warning you about the air-quality dangers of burning candles in your house. I had no idea.

But— and I felt stupid wondering this— the wax of the candle doesn’t actually burn, does it? It’s just the wick… right? Then again, what about “drip-less” candles? Where did I think the wax went?

Well you know, I never really thought about it.

Thanks to the National Candle Association website I now have a slightly better understanding of the physics and chemistry of a candle, and I understand that yes, candle wax does burn, along with the wick, just in a less obvious way. According to the NCA, the heat of the candlewick burning causes nearby wax to melt and become liquid. The liquid wax then is heated further and consequently turns into a gas, which breaks down into its constituent parts of hydrogen and carbon. When these hydrogen and carbon molecules react with oxygen: voila! You get heat, light, water vapor (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2).

Water vapor and carbon dioxide? No heavy metals or furans? So far that sounds pretty… much… okay?

But whether or not paraffin candles are okay depends a whole lot on who you are talking to. A much-cited and disputed study in 2009 at South Carolina State University showed that, over the course of burning for six hours, burning paraffin wax released cancer-causing chemicals. On the other hand, a European study published in 2018 found that if candles are burned for one hour there were no significant traces of cancer-causing chemicals. So there’s debate.

Everyone, however, seems to agree on two things: first, that avoiding paraffin wax helps. Beeswax or soy candles generally do not emit “unwanted chemicals” into the air, so they are a less toxic way to go. Second, that burning anything indoors will negatively affect air quality to some degree, creating particulate matter (PM) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). But then again, so does lighting a match or cooking dinner.

The answer to my original question seemed to be no: even though plastic and paraffin wax are both petroleum products, burning paraffin wax paper didn’t seem any worse than burning a regular piece of paper.

But Wait

So I can burn my butter wrappers in peace. Phew, right? Except I’m afraid this brought me to the doorstep of an even larger and more uncomfortable question, one that I’ve been studiously trying to avoid till now, and here it is:

“to burn or not to burn?”

If I wanted to be chicken about it, I could say this question is beyond my purview. After all, our project this year is very intentionally specific and literal: not to throw anything away. As long as we don’t produce anything evil or harmful we can skirt the question and say, carbon footprint or no, we’ve abided by the rules. Just a little burn pile here! Don’t mind us!

But I don’t want to be chicken, so I’m gonna ask: If burning anything at all releases carbon dioxide, and too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a major cause of global warming, is burning anything okay? Anything at all, ever? I mean, whether it’s coal or propane or wood or paper or butter wrappers, you’re still releasing carbon dioxide into the air, right?

So let’s look at it.

Is ANY Kind Of Burning Okay?

We burn things for lots of reasons: to get rid of things, to cook food, to celebrate, to stay warm. I suppose one might reason that burning fuel to heat our homes is something we need, making it ethically acceptable, whereas having a campfire or bonfire is “just for fun,” and therefore something we don’t need and thereby not as acceptable.

This thought led me to another question: in terms of carbon footprint, how does heating my house actually compare to our nighttime campfire? Looking it up I find that the average Vermont home uses 700 gallons of heating oil annually, producing 16,800 pounds of carbon dioxide, per house. It’s hard to find statistics about how much carbon dioxide is produced by the average campfire, but the highly questionable source of a Reddit thread suggested that a campfire consisting of 22 pounds of wood might release about 21 pounds of carbon dioxide. Assuming this is true, and saying at our house we have perhaps two campfires per week all summer long- equaling 32 campfires; this would mean releasing maybe 672 pounds of CO2 annually… 4% of the amount used to heat the average Vermont home for a year.

Admittedly, these numbers are wildly sketchy, but I’m trying to get a relative handle on something here and even very inexact numbers like these can help. Because what this information tells me is that I’m focusing on the wrong things. If our annual campfire carbon dioxide output is such a tiny fraction of that of our heating oil, I shouldn’t be worrying about the campfires; I should be worrying about the heating oil. It’s like being scared of a mouse and failing to notice there’s also a rabid, drooling hyena in the room. With a machete.

I think it’s human nature to want to focus on the things we feel we have greater control over and can change more easily— I will change the planet by buying a different dish sponge! — but the danger is that when we focus on the manageable we may do so at the expense of the big picture. Maybe it makes more sense to keep the frivolous, the things we don’t “need” and rethink the essentials, instead. So I’m keeping campfires.

But I’m going to research a better way to heat my house.

Postscript

Life involves carbon dioxide. We breathe it out all day long, every day, all our lives. I suppose if we really want to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions we could all just jump off the nearest bridge, but I have no intention of doing that. Instead, I’d rather manage my life and activities thoughtfully. What do I want to spend my carbon dioxide on? In the grand scheme of things, what’s worthwhile, and what isn’t?

In 1991 the environmental thinker, Dartmouth professor Donella Meadows responded to criticism about the college’s annual homecoming bonfire, which was being decried by some students as polluting and wasteful. She said:

Nature can handle bonfires. Nature makes bonfires all the time…The environmental lesson in a bonfire is not that it’s wasteful or polluting, but that, if human beings don’t curb their wastefulness and their penchant for constant expansion, there will come a time when the planet will provide neither the sources nor the sinks for bonfires.

She pointed out an example of a place where this is already happening: Los Angeles, which due to air pollution even back in 1991 had “190 days each year when it’s not safe to breathe.”

A lot has changed in the three decades of climate struggle since Meadows wrote this, but I think her words still make sense. When I looked it up, I was happy to see that the bonfire tradition at Dartmouth survives to this day. Humans have long gathered around the fireside and I’m not quite ready to give that up just yet. There will certainly be those who disagree with me on this, who feel no concession is not worth it to make their carbon footprint ever smaller, who feel that once you justify campfires in the name of fun you can justify almost anything else too, and they will have a point. But the fact is that as humans we can never eliminate our impact entirely. There is always going to be a line drawn, and the question is where that line goes.

Being a good citizen of the world right now means we have to change the way we think about things, the way we do things, but – as I learned during our Year of No Sugar- nothing is sustainable if it feels like a series of endless deprivations. Just as much as we still need to breathe, we still need joy.

And marshmallows. If all else fails we can feed them to the rabid hyena.

 

A Horse Walks into a Recycling Center

Say, for the sake of argument that you plan to take your family on a waterskiing trip.

You are excited. You do the planning, strategizing, packing and at last, you get everybody out there on the boat. Ready to take the first run of the day you look up from the water to gaze upon your family, and suddenly you realize they are… on their phones. They are bored. They are sweaty and— quite possibly— annoyed.

My system: so simple even an astrophysicist could figure it out. Eventually.

Suddenly a thought hits you that hadn’t occurred to you before: maybe no one wanted to go waterskiing but you.

This is the feeling I’d been having lately with regard to my family and the Year of No Garbage. Partly, I think this can be blamed on the nature of the project: whereas our Year of No Sugar entailed the bond of experiencing something together practically every single time we ate food, three times a day, for 365 consecutive days, living No Garbage is more… ephemeral than that. Sure, you throw garbage away more often than you eat food, but it isn’t an activity you do as a group, usually. Disposing of trash is generally a solitary act.

I also think this is in part because figuring out what products and packaging are made of is even harder than figuring out what ingredients are in our food. Sure, there are at least 61 different names for sugar, but there seem to be infinite combinations of plastics in the world, and unlike with food products, packaging corporations are under no obligation to list ingredients used in a little informational box on the side.

Consequently what I’d been finding was that instead of throwing things in the trash, people in my family were instead throwing things at me. And then I’d take care of getting it to where it needed to go.

I’ll give you a for instance. Like many people, in an effort to avoid pandemic exposure, we are probably now getting more packages delivered to us than ever before. The good news is that I have figured out how virtually all mailing materials may be recycled.

But I didn’t get the feeling anyone else in the house had absorbed this knowledge. When my husband Steve tried to hand me a bubble-wrap mailer the other day, I told him he could put it in the recycling himself. Steve protested he was afraid he’d do it wrong.

Then a little while later Greta did a very similar thing. A cellophane bag needed disposing of, so instead of taking care of it for her, I gave her a quiz: where do you think this goes? She guessed Polyethylene recycling, which was close but no cigar. No, I explained, any plastic that is stretchy may go to Polyethylene (supermarket plastic bag) recycling, but any plastic that is crinkly must go into the Terracycle box.

I realize my reactions sound suspiciously like the ravings of a Recycling-Obsessed Lunatic: No! Not the Low Density Polyethylene bin, you cretins! But I genuinely was surprised to realize that just because I have been consumed by thinking and writing about Zero Waste for the last six and a half months, didn’t necessarily mean that my family had absorbed that information. But come to think of it, why would it?

Here’s why I think this matters— and I ask this not out of irritation or pessimism but because I really was beginning to wonder— if my own participating family didn’t internalize the hard won lessons learned from a Year of No Garbage, than who would? If I was the only one actually living No Garbage in our house, then wasn’t that a failure of the project on some fundamental level?

Which isn’t important in the grand scheme of things, except for what it may bode for the future of our landfills and our planet. The $64,000 question being: can people change?

You can lead a horse to water, but can you make him recycle?

It was at this point I read the beginning of this blog to Steve and Greta. Was I wrong to interpret their behavior as lack of interest?

The answers were enlightening. Steve described it like this: “You know how you are about technology? The internet, the computer, the television, the telephone?”

“Sure,” I said. “I don’t touch them with a ten-foot pole. That’s your domain. I don’t know what I’m doing, and I’m afraid I’ll… mess up something you’re working on.”

Oh.

So I’m realizing a few things, most importantly that learning doesn’t take place by osmosis. Hanging up recycling info in the kitchen and placing neat labels on bins isn’t enough. I need to actually talk to my family when they have something to discard. Every time. For a while. Change takes not only time but investment, and I realize I had made some assumptions that just didn’t follow.

So now that we’ve cleared the air things are changing. I’m trying to be more communicative about my beloved system, and they, for their part, aren’t just handing me stuff anymore. I’ve already noticed Greta checking in with me when discarding packaging. “Mom? This goes in polyethylene, right?”

I’m so proud.